DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The status of the claims is as follows:
(a) Claims 1-11 and 13 remain pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 11/14/2025 is filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.97 and have been considered by the Examiner.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after a Final Rejection. Since this application is eligible for Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. The Applicant's submission filed on 11/19/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
The Examiner accepts the amendments received on 11/19/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the instant claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 and 5-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwartz et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2014/0257656 (hereinafter, Schwartz), in view of Holfelder U.S. P.G. Publication 2021/0262177 (hereinafter, Holfelder), in further view of Musil U.S. Patent 5,100,277 (hereinafter, Musil), in further view of Barnat et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2002/0182009 (hereinafter, Barnat), in further view of Sakada et al. WO2006098083A1 (hereinafter, Sakada).
Regarding Claim 1, Schwartz describes a method … comprising a vehicle retarding system controllable to retard the vehicle (retarder system for controlling the vehicle, Schwartz, Paragraph 0013 and Figure 2), and processing circuitry coupled to the vehicle retarding system (controller coupled to the vehicle retarding system, which can run program code, Schwartz, Paragraphs 0013 and 0020 and Figure 2), the method comprising:
-determining, by the processing circuitry, a slope inclination of a downward sloping road surface (determining a slope inclination of a downward sloping road surface, Schwartz, Paragraphs 0011-0013 and Figures 1 and 2) …
-determining, by the processing circuitry, a deceleration level of the vehicle for operating the vehicle at the downward sloping road surface (determining a deceleration level of the vehicle for operating the vehicle at the downward sloping road surface, Schwartz, Paragraphs 0023-0037 and Figure 4 and Table 1) …
-determining, by the processing circuitry, a retardation power level of the vehicle retarding system based on the slope inclination of the downward sloping road surface for obtaining the deceleration level (vehicle capable of regulating the retardation power level of the vehicle based, in part, on the slope inclination of the downward sloping road surface and the determined deceleration level, Schwartz, Paragraphs 0014-0017 and 0023-0037 and Figure 4 and Table 1); and
-controlling, by the processing circuitry, the vehicle retarding system to apply a retardation having the magnitude of the retardation power level (the vehicle system applying the retardation power level determined by the vehicle, Schwartz, Paragraphs 0014-0017 and 0023-0037 and Figure 4 and Table 1).1
Schwartz does not specifically disclose the method to include a vehicle feeding material to a road finishing machine … [and the road surface] to be paved by the road finishing machine.
Holfelder discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Holfelder describes a construction system that includes a vehicle feeding material to a road finishing machine (Holfelder, Paragraphs 0033-0034 and Figures 1-2). Additionally, Holfelder describes that the road surface is paved by the finishing machine (Holfelder, Paragraphs 0033-0034 and Figures 1-2).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the method of Schwartz to include a vehicle feeding material to a road finishing machine … [and the road surface] to be paved by the road finishing machine, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Holfelder.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because having a vehicle feed the material to a road finishing machine allows for ease in pavement and is common practice in road construction (Holfelder, Paragraph 0003).
Schwartz and Holfelder do not specifically disclose the method to include a mechanical connection between the vehicle and the road finishing machine when the road finishing machine paves the downward sloping road surface.
Musil discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Musil describes a construction system that includes a mechanical coupling of a vehicle and a road finishing machine, wherein it is easily known that road finishing includes numerous slopes (i.e., uphill, flat, and downhill) (Musil, Col. 4 Lines 14-29).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the method of Schwartz to include a mechanical connection between the vehicle and the road finishing machine when the road finishing machine paves the downward sloping road surface, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Musil.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because having a vehicle coupled to the finishing machine can potentially allow for efficiency, by means of less personal required for operation (Musil, Col. 1 Line 15 to Col. 2 Line 56).
Schwartz, Holfelder, and Musil do not specifically disclose the method to include a non-fixed mechanical … connection between the a rear of vehicle and the road a front end of the finishing machine.
Barnat describes a non-fixed mechanical connection (i.e., mechanical coupling hook attachment) which connects the supply vehicle to the paving vehicle (Barnat, Paragraph 0039 and Figure 1).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the method of Schwartz to include a non-fixed mechanical connection between the vehicle and the road finishing machine, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Barnat.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because having a vehicle coupled to the finishing machine allows for numerous benefits such as ensuring correct spacing of the vehicles (Barnat, Paragraph 0006).
Schwartz, Holfelder, Musil, and Barnat do not specifically disclose a non-fixed mechanical abutment connection.
Sakada discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Sakada describes an abutment connection (Sakada, Paragraph 0032 and Figures 2-3).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the method of Schwartz to include a non-fixed mechanical abutment connection, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Sakada.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because having a vehicle coupled via an abutment connection allows for a desired connection between two vehicles, while also reducing wear and tear of the connection, thus extending the life of the mechanism (Sakada, Paragraph 0033).
Regarding Claim 2, Schwartz, as modified, describes the method according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle feeds material to the road finishing machine (See the previous Claim 1 – teachings by Halfelder) simultaneous to the vehicle retarding system applies the retardation power level (the vehicle system applying the retardation power level at all times, thus simultaneously, Paragraphs 0014-0017 and 0023-0037 and Figure 4 and Table 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Schwartz, as modified, describes the method according to claim 1, wherein the step of controlling the vehicle retarding system to apply the retardation power level is followed by the steps of:
-determining, by the processing circuitry, a desired vehicle speed of the vehicle (determining a desired speed for the vehicle, Schwartz, Paragraph 0026 and Figure 4); and
-determining, by the processing circuitry, the deceleration level of the vehicle based on the desired vehicle speed (determining the deceleration level of the vehicle based on the desired vehicle speed, Schwartz, Paragraphs 0026-0027 and Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 5, Schwartz, as modified, describes the method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: determining, by the processing circuitry, a maximum allowable retardation power level of the vehicle retarding system; wherein the retardation power level of the vehicle retarding system is based on the maximum allowable retardation power level (vehicle determining maximum allowable retardation power level of the vehicle, wherein the level applied does not exceed the determined maximum level, Schwartz, Paragraphs 0014-0017 and 0023-0037 and Figure 4 and Table 1).
Regarding Claim 6, Schwartz, as modified, describes the method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises:
-determining, by the processing circuitry, a speed variation of the vehicle when the vehicle retarding system is controlled to apply the retardation power level (determining a desired speed for the vehicle based, in part, on the retardation power, Schwartz, Paragraphs 0026-0027 and Figure 4);
-comparing, by the processing circuitry, the speed variation with a predetermined speed variation range (determining the deceleration level of the vehicle based on the desired vehicle speed and ensuring a threshold range, Schwartz, Paragraphs 0026-0027 and Figure 4); and
-controlling, by the processing circuitry, the vehicle retarding system to adjust the retardation power level when the speed variation falls outside the predetermined speed variation range (determining the deceleration level (i.e., retardation power level) of the vehicle based on the desired vehicle speed threshold range, Schwartz, Paragraphs 0026-0027 and Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 7, Schwartz, as modified, describes the method according to claim 6, wherein the retardation power level is adjusted such that a speed of the vehicle falls within the predetermined speed variation range (determining the deceleration level (i.e., retardation power level) of the vehicle based on the desired vehicle speed threshold range, Schwartz, Paragraphs 0026-0027 and Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 8, Schwartz, as modified, describes the method according to claim 1.
Schwartz does not specifically disclose the method to include that the processing circuitry is configured to determine the deceleration level of the vehicle for operating the vehicle at the desired speed by wirelessly receiving a signal from a remote server.
Holfelder discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Holfelder describes the ability of the vehicle to receive information and operate on said information (e.g., decelerate the vehicle) (Holfelder, Paragraphs 0022-0023 and 0042-0043).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the method of Schwartz to include that the processing circuitry is configured to determine the deceleration level of the vehicle for operating the vehicle at the desired speed by wirelessly receiving a signal from a remote server, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Holfelder.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because receiving information wirelessly allows for better paving operations of the vehicles (Holfelder, Paragraphs 0004-0007).
Regarding Claim 9, Schwartz, as modified, describes the method according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle comprises a plurality of vehicle retarding systems, each of the plurality of vehicle retarding systems being operable to apply a retarding force on a respective wheel axle of the vehicle, wherein the retardation power level is based on a number of vehicle retarding systems provided on the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 10, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 11, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 13, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwartz et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2014/0257656 (hereinafter, Schwartz), in view of Holfelder U.S. P.G. Publication 2021/0262177 (hereinafter, Holfelder), in further view of Musil U.S. Patent 5,100,277 (hereinafter, Musil), in further view of Barnat et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2002/0182009 (hereinafter, Barnat), in further view of Sakada et al. WO2006098083A1 (hereinafter, Sakada), in further view of Tagesson et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2022/0024432 (hereinafter, Tagesson),
Regarding Claim 4, Schwartz, as modified, describes the method according to claim 1.
Schwartz does not specifically disclose the method to include that the method further comprises: determining, by the processing circuitry, a current weight of the vehicle; wherein the retardation power level of the vehicle retarding system is based on the current weight of the vehicle.
Tagesson discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Tagesson describes a vehicle system that incorporates the current weight of the vehicle as a factor of the retardation power level of the system (Tagesson, Paragraphs 0058-0062).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the method of Schwartz to include that the method further comprises: determining, by the processing circuitry, a current weight of the vehicle; wherein the retardation power level of the vehicle retarding system is based on the current weight of the vehicle, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Holfelder.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because a vehicle system incorporating factors such as the weight of the vehicle in the retarding system, allows for the vehicle to select a more accurate and appropriate downhill speed for the vehicle (Tagesson, Paragraph 0004).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J CROMER whose telephone number is (313)446-6563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: ~ 8:15 A.M. - 6:00 P.M..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDREW J CROMER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
1 The Examiner finds the term magnitude to simply be the absolute power. In other words, power is either positive or negative. In the prior art reference Schwartz, the reference teaches power level to be in the positive.